The year 2016 has seen a plethora of books on General Douglas MacArthur, a man who continues to loom large in the American imagination and has even received regular mention in two of this year’s presidential debates.
There is something at once captivating yet unnerving about a man who had enough popular support to have made a run at president had he not had such a strong sense of duty to his war responsibilities, yet a strong tendency to resort to force as a first resort and potentially upend the democratic system should he have succeeded.
It is well known that FDR had once quipped that MacArthur was “the most dangerous man in America” early on in the former’s career after he caused a scandal for the Hoover administration by forcibly and violently removing First World War veterans or “Bonus Marchers” from the streets of Washington D.C. as they were considered “communists” by the failing Hoover administration. Of course Roosevelt wasn’t immune himself to dictatorial tendencies that seemed so common all over the world in the 1930s and perhaps he saw in some of MacArthur’s worst qualities a mirror image of his own excesses. FDR had an admiration of Italian corporatism to the point of adopting some of its ideas for his government controlled New Deal programs. He also failed in his 1938 attempt to pack the Supreme Court and ran for an unprecedented third and fourth term, something now outlawed by the Constitution. Whatever the case, there was certainly an antagonism between the two, but it would be FDR’s successor Truman who would end MacArthur’s career.
Despite his penchant for action instead of diplomacy (unlike his subordinate and future President Dwight D Eisenhower who had a gift for politics) there is little evidence that MacArthur would have become a dictator. Like FDR, most of the qualities others disliked in him were the flip side of an incredible bravery, love for his country and desire to finish the job at hand. Not to mention that when he was put in charge of a Japan after the war under his duties as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), critics and admirers alike praised his work.
Where the authors of these books differ is in whether MacArthur’s conceit was justified in its relation to his effectiveness as a military leader, not a political one. In MacArthur At War Walter Borneman tells a story that is much more critical of MacArthur’s leadership in the Pacific Theater during the Second World War. In parts he is scathing, particularly when it comes to MacArthur’s indecision and confusion on December 7th, 1941 when 9 hours after the Pearl Harbor attack planes at Clark Field on the Philippines were destroyed by a Japanese aerial onslaught. Other times Borneman is less so as when he concedes that MacArthur’s escape from Bataan and subsequent retreat to headquarters on Corregidor while his men starved, earning him the moniker “Dugout Doug”, was hardly fair. He does note how MacArthur’s position and reputation later improved but it’s clear that Borneman sees MacArthur as a somewhat overrated general and an ineffective military leader.
This is a different General MacArthur than the one that Arthur Herman writes about in Douglas MacArthur: American Warrior. In it, Herman’s MacArthur is a more complex character who despite his faults, nonetheless comes across as a gifted general and a sympathetic fighter. While by no means a hagiography as some past MacArthur biographies have been, Herman treats MacArthur with the fairer judgement of history than that which he has been given in critical biographies. In fact Herman’s American Warrior is one of the best Military History biographies of 2016.
He balances the very real faults of the man with MacArthur’s incredible acts of bravery under fire and undeniable tenacity in battle. Herman follows MacArthur from his earliest days in the First World War to his legion close calls with death in the Pacific to his sacking by Truman and finally his death. One takes away the story of an devoted general who was largely adored by his subordinates as he fought on alone against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and provided the American people back home with a sense of hope by the fight back that he and his men embodied. He did this in spite of chronic shortages during his battle in New Guinea and the Philippines (Borneman believes these shortages were exaggerated by MacArthur) and personal and professional hardships that included a deep shame about “abandoning” his men at Bataan (he was forced to leave them by the order of the Commander in Chief).
MacArthur is less present in James Duffy’s War At the End of the World which reads more like a play-by-play that takes the reader from Australia to New Guinea and focuses more on soldier’s movements on the ground and lesser military figures. Duffy’s book is a difficult read that while chronological, lacks narrative style and takes great effort to complete. It is useful information to be sure about a lesser known Pacific battle and one would hope the New Guinea campaign can get the epic story it and those who fought in it so richly deserve. Unfortunately, despite a large number of facts and figures War At the End of the World is not that story.
General Douglas MacArthur is and will likely remain a controversial figure in the history of World War Two and beyond. His legacy is a complicated and rich one that will undoubtedly continue to yield many more pages in the years to come.
Dedicated to my grandfather Keith L. Peterson who “idolized” MacArthur and served under The General in the Signal Corps in New Guinea and the Philippines – and who never forgave President Truman for firing his hero.